Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    The experienced politician

    Share
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    The experienced politician

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:17 am

    At least one board member is under the impression that an experienced politician would be better at governing than a novice, even if that novice has a vast amount of executive experience in a non governmental role.


    Well let the KARK boldly state that there are professions where experience can actually be a detriment.


    Politics I believe is one of them.


    Ironically, another profession that qualifies also starts with a "P" and involving screwing people.


    It can't be a coincidence that people in both of these very old professions are often referred to as whores.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:59 am

    Good government and politicians come in all kinds of packages....experienced, novice, blue collar, elitists, etc.  I'd just like principled people running the country, not prone to being bought by monied interests.  Not sure that exists anymore.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7238
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by alohafri on Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:33 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:At least one board member is under the impression that an experienced politician would be better at governing than a novice, even if that novice has a vast amount of executive experience in a non governmental role.


    Well let the KARK boldly state that there are professions where experience can actually be a detriment.


    Politics I believe is one of them.


    Ironically, another profession that qualifies also starts with a "P" and involving screwing people.


    It can't be a coincidence that people in both of these very old professions are often referred to as whores.

    You misunderstood my statement (most likely on purpose). The idea that you can put in a bunch of new people with no experience and expect them to learn on the job with no one to guide them is ludacris. Also, the idea of the people at the highest levels of any corporation or government is equally crazy. I have 28 years of experience teaching junior high school kids with all of the other things that go along with it. Despite the fact that I have experiences due to my career in things like leadership, training, decision making, etc., I don't think I would make a very good executive for BP. I could argue that I would bring fresh ideas and the fact that I haven't been a part of the "corporate swamp" would be an advantage, but I don't think that would get me the job.


    Chicago Public Schools are notoriously bad (some of it true, some of it not). But a much worse school district is the school district in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas). Why? A vast majority of their teachers have less than five years experience. There is no one to guide them. Not even administrators, who are also under-experienced.


    My argument is not against new people. It is against term limits. Term limits take away my responsibilities as a voter.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7238
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by alohafri on Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:44 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:At least one board member is under the impression that an experienced politician would be better at governing than a novice, even if that novice has a vast amount of executive experience in a non governmental role.


    Donald Trump is a perfect example. He "promises" that the new tax bill will be a "Christmas present for the American people." That's a bit of overpromising because he has no idea how government works. When Congress couldn't agree on a "repeal and replace" in HIS time frame, he said, fuck it, let's move on to something else. Why? He doesn't know how government works. He is only one of three main cogs in our law making system. He can't control the other two branches of government because they operate independently of him. His comments about Beau Bergdahl during the campaign have been linked to his light sentence. It's been said that his tweets about the terrorist in New York City will prevent that individual from getting a death sentence because, thanks to Trump's tweets, his ability to get a fair trial is greatly diminished. He doesn't learn, nor does he want to. He seems to think this is an extension of his reality show where he can fire people for no rhyme or reason.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:48 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:At least one board member is under the impression that an experienced politician would be better at governing than a novice, even if that novice has a vast amount of executive experience in a non governmental role.


    Well let the KARK boldly state that there are professions where experience can actually be a detriment.


    Politics I believe is one of them.


    Ironically, another profession that qualifies also starts with a "P" and involving screwing people.


    It can't be a coincidence that people in both of these very old professions are often referred to as whores.

    You misunderstood my statement (most likely on purpose). The idea that you can put in a bunch of new people with no experience and expect them to learn on the job with no one to guide them is ludacris. Also, the idea of the people at the highest levels of any corporation or government is equally crazy. I have 28 years of experience teaching junior high school kids with all of the other things that go along with it. Despite the fact that I have experiences due to my career in things like leadership, training, decision making, etc., I don't think I would make a very good executive for BP. I could argue that I would bring fresh ideas and the fact that I haven't been a part of the "corporate swamp" would be an advantage, but I don't think that would get me the job.


    Chicago Public Schools are notoriously bad (some of it true, some of it not). But a much worse school district is the school district in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas). Why? A vast majority of their teachers have less than five years experience. There is no one to guide them. Not even administrators, who are also under-experienced.


    My argument is not against new people. It is against term limits. Term limits take away my responsibilities as a voter.



    I don't recall mentioning term limits the other day


    Perhaps it was you who misunderstood my statement on purpose
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:52 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:At least one board member is under the impression that an experienced politician would be better at governing than a novice, even if that novice has a vast amount of executive experience in a non governmental role.


    Donald Trump is a perfect example. He "promises" that the new tax bill will be a "Christmas present for the American people." That's a bit of overpromising because he has no idea how government works. When Congress couldn't agree on a "repeal and replace" in HIS time frame, he said, fuck it, let's move on to something else. Why? He doesn't know how government works. He is only one of three main cogs in our law making system. He can't control the other two branches of government because they operate independently of him. His comments about Beau Bergdahl during the campaign have been linked to his light sentence. It's been said that his tweets about the terrorist in New York City will prevent that individual from getting a death sentence because, thanks to Trump's tweets, his ability to get a fair trial is greatly diminished. He doesn't learn, nor does he want to. He seems to think this is an extension of his reality show where he can fire people for no rhyme or reason.


    i dispute your premise


    It not Trump lack of understanding of how government works, more like congress no longer works very well.


    Your experienced in how government works theory coupled with your Trumps a dope nonsense can be easily refuted.


    to paraphrase one of your establishment heroes Joe Biden, I can refute it with one simple four letter word


    D
    O
    W
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:05 pm

    Donald Trump is a perfect example. He "promises" that the new tax bill will be a "Christmas present for the American people." That's a bit of overpromising because he has no idea how government works.

    The Christmas gift will be to corporations if this tax bill passes as the top Corp tax rate goes from 35 to 20%.  Conservative opinion holds that a cut in corporate taxes will spur economic growth as companies will use the extra money to hire more employees and invest in capital equipment.
    But reality is nobody knows exactly how that extra money will be used by corporations.  It could be any number of things which don't contribute to overall economic or employment growth in the US, such as:
    1- buying back their own stock to increase their stock prices as US companies have been doing at record rate the last 8-9 years.  This was one of the biggest uses of corporate profits which have been at an alltime high for last 3-4 years.
    2- acquiring other companies which actually harms employment as jobs are routinely cut to save costs when companies merge.
    3- Investing overseas


    [size=16]4- Higher bonuses and perks for top executives
    [/size]

    No real assurance that these massive tax cuts to corporations will do anything more than make the big corporations even more profitable/powerful and the rich stockholders who own their shares even richer.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:34 pm

    rmapasad wrote:Donald Trump is a perfect example. He "promises" that the new tax bill will be a "Christmas present for the American people." That's a bit of overpromising because he has no idea how government works.

    The Christmas gift will be to corporations if this tax bill passes as the top Corp tax rate goes from 35 to 20%.  Conservative opinion holds that a cut in corporate taxes will spur economic growth as companies will use the extra money to hire more employees and invest in capital equipment.
    But reality is nobody knows exactly how that extra money will be used by corporations.  It could be any number of things which don't contribute to overall economic or employment growth in the US, such as:
    1- buying back their own stock to increase their stock prices as US companies have been doing at record rate the last 8-9 years.  This was one of the biggest uses of corporate profits which have been at an alltime high for last 3-4 years.
    2- acquiring other companies which actually harms employment as jobs are routinely cut to save costs when companies merge.
    3- Investing overseas


    [size=16]4- Higher bonuses and perks for top executives
    [/size]

    No real assurance that these massive tax cuts to corporations will do anything more than make the big corporations even more profitable/powerful and the rich stockholders who own their shares even richer.

    Corporations are already experiencing historical successes and profits and wages remain stagnant.  I don't know what they think that lowering the rate to 20% will do.  Nobody really pays 35% as it is.  The adjusted rate that corporations paid in the last couple of years is 18.6%.  Maybe dump all of the deductions and make the rate a flat 24% and they could bring in more than they currently are.  How many more people need to be hired?  Economists consider a 5% unemployment rate to be "full employment."  Granted, our participation rate is a bit lower than desired, so maybe we need to shoot for 4%, but we're pretty much there now.  I don't really see what think we'll gain by lowering rates, other than to make donors happy.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by rmapasad on Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:30 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Corporations are already experiencing historical successes and profits and wages remain stagnant.  I don't know what they think that lowering the rate to 20% will do.  Nobody really pays 35% as it is.  The adjusted rate that corporations paid in the last couple of years is 18.6%.  Maybe dump all of the deductions and make the rate a flat 24% and they could bring in more than they currently are.  How many more people need to be hired?  Economists consider a 5% unemployment rate to be "full employment."  Granted, our participation rate is a bit lower than desired, so maybe we need to shoot for 4%, but we're pretty much there now.  I don't really see what think we'll gain by lowering rates, other than to make donors happy.

    Yeah, cutting corporate taxes has become a mantra based on many assertions for Heritage Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, conservatives, etc. rather than on empirically-proven evidence that such tax cuts spur employment or economic growth.   But that may not be common sense.

    Say a business is at the highest marginal tax bracket of 35% and has the choice of spending
     $ 100,000 on a new employee or keeping it as profits.  They'll get a $ 35,000 tax deduction for the new employee's salary times 35% meaning profits are $ 87,750 less even after tax deduction. 
    If they don't hire him and keep the $100,000 and pay 35% tax on that, that means $ 65,000 more profit after taxes.  Basically a $ 152,000 gain from not hiring v. hiring.

    What about a 20% tax rate ?   The $100,000 salary produces a $ 20,000 deduction times 20% =
    $ 4000 fewer taxes so [size=13][size=13][size=13]$ 96,000 less profits from hiring the guy.    Whereas if they don't hire they keep [size=13][size=13][size=13][size=13][size=13]$ 80,000 of those profits after taxes.    A difference of $ 176,000 from not hiring v. hiring.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
    This corporate tax cut could be an incentive to NOT HIRE more people or spend more on investments  because the tax breaks from those expenditures are now less.

    Possible solution ?  Give companies a 50 % tax deduction for employee salaries/benefits instead.  That means the new employee's net hit to profits is reduced to $ 75,000 and the advantage of not hiring v. hiring is reduced to $ 140,000.   That's virtually the same tax break as lowering the corp tax rate to 20% which reduces taxes $ 15,000 per $ 100,000 profits.   This added tax break on employee spending adds $ 12,500 of tax savings per $ 100,000.   Plus it is predicated on the thing that you hope companies will do (but probably won't) if given an unconditional tax reduction. 
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2578
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by rmapasad on Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:02 pm


    Possible solution ?  Give companies a 50 % tax deduction for employee salaries/benefits instead. >>

    To clarify, that would mean companies could get an "extra" 50% deduction for employee salaries and benefits (ie. be able to deduct 150% of salaries/benefits) subject to certain limitations such as: the total of "Extra" tax benefits would be the same as they would get by reducing their current corp tax rate down to a max of 20%, and the salaries/benefits of employees making over $ 500,000 per year cannot be used in that 150% deduction.   
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2096
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:13 am

    The Christmas gift will be to corporations if this tax bill passes as the top Corp tax rate goes from 35 to 20%. 


    ****************************


    Contrary to the leftwing lies, this is not a gift.  this is essential to keep American businesses competivie in a global market


    and if Trumps gets this while repealing the death tax and AMT, something Bush 2 should have done, then Kevin's experienced politicians theory gets shit to hell


    PS, congress doesn't govern, they just legislate.  The actual running is done by the execute branch and the unelected bureaucratic state.  So yes, a strong business background is superior than a life in Congress.  Only a fool would think 5 months in the Senate would elevate a part time law professor to the status of a Romeny or a Trump

    Sponsored content

    Re: The experienced politician

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:03 pm